Safari vs Firefox
- Thread starter stinkyboy
- Start date
It's pretty good about blocking popups/unders.
Yes, it does autofill.
I like Firefox. Don't use Safari so I can't directly compare the two, but Firefox just seems intuitive to me. Everything works just like I'd make it work if I wrote the program, and it's fast.
Tabbed browsing is teh win.
Yes, it does autofill.
I like Firefox. Don't use Safari so I can't directly compare the two, but Firefox just seems intuitive to me. Everything works just like I'd make it work if I wrote the program, and it's fast.
Tabbed browsing is teh win.
I like 'em both, and use both all the time for various reasons.
Though the Microsofties will feel vindicated when I say the following; I still use Safari as my primary browser because of it's tight integration with OS X. Downloaded pages automatically get Spotlighted, etc...
Though the Microsofties will feel vindicated when I say the following; I still use Safari as my primary browser because of it's tight integration with OS X. Downloaded pages automatically get Spotlighted, etc...
I have firefox and safari on my computer because for some reason all of the webpages from my university aren't compatible with safari. I have v. 1.0.7. i hate it. i get pop ups and unders, no spell check while i type. i tried to get a plug in for it and it would only work if you were running linux.
i really like safari. i only use firefox when i have to register for class.
i really like safari. i only use firefox when i have to register for class.
According to Mozilla, Firefox 1.5 has faster browser navigation, an automated update feature and improved popup blocking and removal of personal data. Nothing too earth shattering.
I've been using the betas which seem to work well but will go with the upgrade as this is my primary browser.
I've been using the betas which seem to work well but will go with the upgrade as this is my primary browser.
Safari is the best browser on the market in my opinion.
I use Firefox for old/crappy/microsoft sites that block, or won't work properly in Safari, and for debugging Javascript/CSS (Firefox has some nice plugins for that). But for day to day, gotta go with Safari, if not because it's the best, because it's so well integrated with OSX.
I use Firefox for old/crappy/microsoft sites that block, or won't work properly in Safari, and for debugging Javascript/CSS (Firefox has some nice plugins for that). But for day to day, gotta go with Safari, if not because it's the best, because it's so well integrated with OSX.
I personally use Firefox, and will NEVER use anything but. Very good program, and I think I'm running 1.0.2 or something.
Your tongue is flappy.stinkyboy said:
Safari=Tabbed browsingbinary visions said:
I know.golgiaparatus said:
I was just sayin'.
I've been using Safari since it came out and don't have any reason to switch. If it ain't broken, don't fix it! (I heard that somewhere...)
Firefox is primary. i have to keep IE on my computer though, 'cause a lot of the school's sites do not like Firefox. annoying. I have Opera, as well, but have stopped using it. it was nice for a while, being black and all, but it just became annoying. wish i could get Firefox to have a darker theme.
I switched from IE to Firefox to Opera and I much prefer Opera. Not tried Safari.
I tried Safari on my mom's iMac over the holiday and installed Firefox in about an hour later. It seemed to hang when loading pages and was overall slower it seemed compared to Firefox. Bookmark management was funky too, but I didn't use it for very long.
I've been using Firefox for a while now and I'm very happy with it.
I've been using Firefox for a while now and I'm very happy with it.
Like most everyone else in this forum on Mac it seems, I use Safari as my primary browser, and Firefox as a secondary. Safari's integration with OSX is awesome, it's fast, tabbed browsing is really nice, the RSS feedfinder is handy, and it looks GREAT. The anti-aliasing of text, form objects like drop-downs and buttons, and the smooth scrolling of a page are top-notch.
Firefox gets used mainly when a page doesn't work in Safari. It seems like Safari is so DOM compliant or something that it doesn't like sloppily coded sites. Also, it seems that certain WYSIWYG editors don't work in Safari, or work much better in Firefox. But, Firefox has clunky scrolling, which for some reason bugs the bejesus out of me, and I just think Safari "looks" better - it displays objects and text better to me.
Firefox gets used mainly when a page doesn't work in Safari. It seems like Safari is so DOM compliant or something that it doesn't like sloppily coded sites. Also, it seems that certain WYSIWYG editors don't work in Safari, or work much better in Firefox. But, Firefox has clunky scrolling, which for some reason bugs the bejesus out of me, and I just think Safari "looks" better - it displays objects and text better to me.
Yes, this is part of the problem. Safari is designed to work EXACTLY according to specs, so poorly written code does not work properly in it. It's a common misconception that this is a fault in the browser...but really, Safari 2.0 is flawless, it's the page that is wrong. It's the first to pass several benchmark tests for browsers, and to this day is the only one that passes the Acid2 test (CSS compliance).
I love safari.Ridemonkey said:
Why don't you marry it?Transcend said:
Yeah lover boy, marry it.
Fraser and Safari, sittin' in a tree...
K-I-S-S-I-N-G
First comes love, then comes marriage,
Then comes a slickly coded, light weight, CSS compliant browser with a French accent and governmentally subsidized healthcare in a baby carriage.
K-I-S-S-I-N-G
First comes love, then comes marriage,
Then comes a slickly coded, light weight, CSS compliant browser with a French accent and governmentally subsidized healthcare in a baby carriage.
From a technical perspective, this is correct.Ridemonkey said:
From a usability standpoint, it's wrong wrong wrong.
What's better, an MP3 player that will reject your MP3 because there are corruptions in the file, or an MP3 player with some fault tolerance that will still play your file despite minor glitches?
The answer is that the second player is better. Period. From a technical standpoint, the first player is rejecting the incorrect file for valid reasons, but the end user shouldn't have to suffer because of it. I'm a little astounded that this is a defended flaw, actually - this is what the world would be like if engineers ran everything. Anything not to spec would be immediately rejected out of hand
. Normal people don't care if the page is scripted perfectly, they just care about the end result.It does make it an excellent benchmark to determine if your page is compliant, though.
So....... what is all this integration with OSX you speak of? I am a Firefox user just because that is what I am used to. Isn't one of Windoze fatal Flaws that IE is so tightly integrated with the OS? So whats the deal with Safari and OSX?
binary visions said:From a technical perspective, this is correct.
From a usability standpoint, it's wrong wrong wrong.
What's better, an MP3 player that will reject your MP3 because there are corruptions in the file, or an MP3 player with some fault tolerance that will still play your file despite minor glitches?
The answer is that the second player is better. Period. From a technical standpoint, the first player is rejecting the incorrect file for valid reasons, but the end user shouldn't have to suffer because of it. I'm a little astounded that this is a defended flaw, actually - this is what the world would be like if engineers ran everything. Anything not to spec would be immediately rejected out of hand
It does make it an excellent benchmark to determine if your page is compliant, though.
Making adjustments for sloppiness is the American way!
The end who?binary visions said:From a technical perspective, this is correct.
From a usability standpoint, it's wrong wrong wrong.
What's better, an MP3 player that will reject your MP3 because there are corruptions in the file, or an MP3 player with some fault tolerance that will still play your file despite minor glitches?
The answer is that the second player is better. Period. From a technical standpoint, the first player is rejecting the incorrect file for valid reasons, but the end user shouldn't have to suffer because of it. I'm a little astounded that this is a defended flaw, actually - this is what the world would be like if engineers ran everything. Anything not to spec would be immediately rejected out of hand
It does make it an excellent benchmark to determine if your page is compliant, though.
Maybe, but total intolerance of faults is just plain stupidstinkyboy said:
How would you like an English teacher rejecting your whole paper because of a typo? Would you like to fail a driving test because you signaled 180ft before a turn instead of 200ft? Are you going to tell your mom that you can't accept her Christmas present this year because the bow wasn't centered and there was a crease in the paper?
i <3 safari. it just works so well. macs>pcs.
Well they are good for hipsters as they can match the computer to the decor in thier kitchen nook.H8R said:
ink:
H8R said:Heh heh.
It's 4 times faster than IE 5.2.3...
You do know that 5.2.3 is the most recent version for MACS right?
Even if it reduces battery life?binary visions said:
Even if it increases binary size pushing out other features?
Even if it makes the code base so bloated and confusing bugs that effect sound quality are not fixed because nobody wants to wrestle with it?
Even if it needs a beefier processor pushing up the price?
There are plenty of advantages for the user if a browser uses a much simpler, leaner and faster layout engine.
Firefox is fast, reasonably bug free, compact and free to download.D_D said:
And it'll render imperfectly scripted pages.
There's a happy medium, and frankly, most of the population would much rather err on the side of the browser being bloated and more buggy than have to figure out what to do when they visit a page and it won't display. They know what to do when the browser crashes, but most of 'em don't know what to do, or even that they CAN do anything, when a page won't load.
binary visions said:
OK, i'll bite. What CAN we do when a page won't load? (if you say download the page source and go through the code for the error i'm gonna :nuts: you
)